My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
HYDRO31609
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Hydrology
>
HYDRO31609
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:55:14 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:05:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Hydrology
Doc Date
4/8/1992
Doc Name
Proposed Water Monitoring
From
Roy L Cox
To
Susan Mowry
Permit Index Doc Type
Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
-2- <br />On April 8, 1982, a memo was sent to Susan Mowry concerning surface and <br />ground water monitoring for the CF&I Allen and Maxwell Mines (see <br />Attachment A). <br />On April 15, 1982, Susan Mowry sent a copy of my April 8 memo to CF&I. <br />On April 23, 1982, Jack Gillespie and I met in my office to discuss my <br />it 8 memo. In this meeting, I explained in detail the analysis I <br />pr ormed on the overburden and water quality chemistry. I also <br />explained the statutory and regulatory reasoning used in requiring <br />receiving stream standards as a measure of material damage and as a <br />measure of the impacts of mining on the quality of surface and ground <br />water. <br />Jack Gillespie said I should review the arguments CF&I presented to the <br />Water Quality Control Commission. I asked him to send ine a copy of this <br />information. <br />On April 28, 1982, I received the follow up letter from Jack Gillespie <br />dated April 27, 1982 (Attachment B). <br />The receiving stream standards for the Puryatoire River and its <br />tributaries were established to protect the stream's water quality for <br />aquatic habitat, agriculture, and domestic uses. These standards <br />represent thresholds, above which material damage could occur to the <br />users of the water within and downstream of the permit areas. <br />The list of receiving stream standard'parameters was used to evaluate <br />CF&I's proposed monitoring plan because Rule 4.05.1(3) requires of the <br />operator that, "In no case shall Federal and State water quality <br />statutes, standards or effluent limitation be violated.~~To evaluate if <br />water quality standards have been violated, the company must monitor the <br />quality of ground and surface water as required under Rule <br />4.05.13(1)(a)(i) and Rules 4.05.13(2)(a)(i). Also, Rule <br />4.05.13(2)(a)(ii) requires the operator ;~~a notify ... the <br />Division within 5 days after analytical results of the sample collections <br />indicate that non-compliance with a permit condition or applicable <br />standard has occurred.~~'Without analyzing water quality samples for <br />parameters with established receiving stream standards, the Division <br />cannot judge the operators compliance with the following performance <br />standards; Rules 4.05.1(3), 4.05.2(7), and 4.05.10(2)(a)(i). The <br />applicant also will not have the data to report any non-compliance with <br />receiving stream standards as required in Rule 4.05.13(2)(a)(ii). <br />Receiving stream standards reflect minimum acceptable degradation levels <br />for a stream. The NPDES permit system uses the receiving stream <br />standards to evaluate point source discharges to the streams. The NPDES <br />permit system, however, does not govern non-point source discharges to <br />receiving streams such as ground water from disposal sites. This is <br />covered in the Act, Section 34-33-121(2)(d) quoted below: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.